Talk:Vassar College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject New York (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

campus media[edit]

Ok, so this is pissing me off, but I'll defer to others:

I added a new media section, thereby moving the section on the Misc to a more appropriate area (the Misc doesn't belong in the Overview of Vassar College). I also put in a mention of a new campus medium: Pink/Grey, a Vassar blog. Any mention of P/G keeps getting deleted. This is Wikipedia! This is a place where new media should be championed, not deleted.

If you agree with me, respond here and revert those changes. If you think I'm wrong, then respond here. Vcdevx99 03:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Vcdevx99

I strongly disagree. The Wikipedia site is not about championing ANYTHING. While the philosophy behind Wikipedia may champion new media, this is still an encyclopedia, and not a forum for self-promotion. The blog should NOT be included, unless it is a notable and significant part of Vassar life. Djdickmutt 07:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so keep a mention of the blog out. Fine. But what about moving the part on the Misc to a more appropriate area?

Or here's another question: Why not do a section on campus media and talk about the tons of publications on campus? Squirm isn't there, but it was cited by the NY Times Magazine as the leading college sex/porn publication. What about the MICA/ghetto controversy? What about "Felch" and the resulting conversations all over campus? What about OnCampus (now available online) or the new VSA publication mentioning what Council is up to? The Misc isn't alone out there! Vcdevx99 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Vcdevx99

I think that's not a bad idea. If you want to create an appropriate section for official Vassar campus publications, go for it. But I'd stick with publications supported by Vassar and the VSA, and keep it strictly informational, and not promotional. Good luck! Djdickmutt 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Page arrangement[edit]

I moved the "Faculty" section up above the "Famous Alumni" section, but it seems this page needs some further reorganization. Honestly, I find it embarrassing (as an alum) that the list of "Famous alumni" is so prominent in this article. There are certainly more important things about Vassar than who went there. The article should focus more on things such as faculty, academic programs, history, etc. I'd like to suggest that the "famous alumni" section be broken off into its own page, if people feel that it's necessary to list every darn one of 'em. Gsd97jks 01:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

i'd agree with simply cutting this list/section out and making it a new page perhaps leaving behind something to the extent of "Several well known names from the arts and sciences have graduated from or attended Vassar College. An (overly) extensive list can be found [link|here]." while perhaps deleting 'overly' Does anybody have strong objections to this or input on how best to do it, or what to say on the main page instead? --Jowe 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
also, vassar has a website here of vassar related innovators. could be useful to add to page as well. have link to seperate page on alumni and say, "Vassar also maintains a page of interesting accomplishments by alumni here" --Jowe 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd give it another week and if no objections just do it. This thread has been here for almost 3 months now. Gsd97jks 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's verifiability policy, linked under every edit box, requires that all Wikipedia content must be traceable to a published source, and the source must be cited. In the case of alumni lists, this means that every name on the list needs to have a citation showing that the person attended Vassar. If the person is the subject of a Wikipedia article that says she or he attended Vassar and that article gives a source for the fact, that source should be copied into this article; the page link itself won't do, as WIkipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles.
The policy applies to everything in Wikipedia, of course, but the reason I lay particular stress on alumni lists is that they frequently attract casual additions of carelessly researched entries. Most of the entries are almost certainly valid, but sources need to be supplied anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Male graduates before 1969[edit]

I've added mention to the 'trivia' section regarding men who matriculated at vassar immediately after world war II on the GI bill. I suppose this could be classified as 'original research', not sure. My father was in that first graduating class that included men (eleven of them). A scan of the relevant portion of the program from the graduation ceremonies can be found here [1]. again, if this constitutes original research, i guess it can be pulled, though it is a rather fascinating bit of history. Anastrophe 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


There are many abundantly clear examples of bias in this article: “Vassar is often praised for its beautiful campus, a 1000 acre (4 km?) lot of land marked by period and modern buildings that is also an arboretum; since that time, it has maintained its reputation as one of America's outstanding liberal arts colleges, and is especially noted for its tolerant social atmosphere; the college is a member of the "Little Ivies," an unaffiliated group of elite northeastern liberal arts colleges; Vassar is a leader in producing doctoral candidates; Vassar students are well known for their individuality, creativity, and open-mindedness; many beautiful old brick buildings are scattered throughout the bucolic campus, but there are also several modern and contemporary structures worth noting." Did this come straight from the College’s website? Courier new 22:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias ?[edit]

I disagree with the above allegation of bias in the article. I found no similarity between the Vassar Web site and the article. The information in question - the attractiveness of the campus - seems fairly innocuous and is fairly similar to the type of information in Wikipedia articles about other liberal arts colleges and several universities. The article reads like synopsis of commercially available background information in colleges guide books. While I would have written the main paragraph differently, I hardly think this qualifies as biased, and without some criteria to differentiate this page from other pages on other schools, I believe the objection should be removed from this page.

The article violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, clearly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place to find innformation, not a forum for opinions. If you are unwilling to make changes, then I will go ahead and make them myself. Also, you should leave you name when commenting. Courier new 01:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I realize that the article is not up to date and violates Wikipedia's policy against personal research (ie, students spend time doing ceratin activities on a certain lawn). Courier new 01:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that much of the information on this page is somewhat biased. And the architectural info came from me, not the college's website - so, my apologies for lack of "neutrality" there. However, if you edit the page to remove said "bias", please re-read your edits before saving the page. Simply removing phrases and not doing a little copyedit makes the page read poorly. I have made some minor edits just so that it reads a little cleaner, hopefully not restoring anything that you feel is biased. I think the bigger issue is that this page has become a series of lists (academic majors, famous alums, residence halls) with little encyclopedic content and is an embarrasment compared to other articles about comparable schools. Someone please help to fix this article! Gsd97jks 02:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Academic List[edit]

I deleted the list of academic departments as i don't see a need to say that yes, Vassar does indeed have biology and english and such - tho i did keep the other interesting tidbits. Sorry if i stepped on anyone's toes, please edit it and add anything of interest that i may have cut out, but please don't just revert the whole long list. or discuss changes here... --Jowe 01:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Speaking as someone who didn't attend Vassar, is there any reason to list all the student housing here? I can't imagine that's useful information for any more than a couple of people.

  • Dorm affiliation is an enormous part of being a student at Vassar, and from what I can tell, many other articles on colleges list their student housing. At Vassar and other colleges without fraternities, the residential houses act as communities more than simply a place to park your stuff.--tufkaa 15:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm an alum, and I question the relevance of this as well. It's true that dorm affiliation is relevant for some people at Vassar, but I don't think it's really relevant to an encyclopedia. Personally, I would hope there are more pertinent things to say in an article about Vassar than "Josselyn had the distinction of being the first residence hall on campus to have showers."Croctotheface 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The big problem I have with this section is that it is at least flirting with copyright violation, since most of the content is almost identical to the content at the cited web pages; e.g.
    • (Wikipedia)
Josselyn House was designed by Francis Allen and completed in 1912. It was the gift of Mrs. Russell Sage who named the building in honor of her mother. Josselyn had the distinction of being the first residence hall on campus to have showers. With its U–shaped construction and its battlements, Josselyn resembles Jewett House in style. Its current capacity is 237 students.
Olivia Josselyn House was designed by Francis Allen and completed in 1912. It was the gift of Mrs. Russell Sage who named the building in honor of her mother. Josselyn had the distinction of being the first residence hall on campus to have showers. With its U–shaped construction and its battlements, Josselyn resembles Jewett, sans tower. Its current capacity is 237 students
Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ack! That's CLEAR copyright violation and clear plagiarism. I'm deleting the section. Croctotheface 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for eliminating the copy-vio. Will someone re-insert this information in a non-controversial manner?--tufkaa 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vague puffery[edit]

  • Vassar is one of the nation's leaders in producing candidates for graduate school, law school, medical school, and business school. It is known for having high-caliber students, an engaging and scholarly faculty base, strong alumni/alumnae connections, and small class sizes.

This needs to be reworded and given a proper source. As it stands, both of these sentences are good examples of peacock and weasel terms.

"One of the nation's leaders" is vacuously true. There's no way of telling whether this is supposed to mean "in the top three" or "in the top fifty." As worded, it's no more than a vague compliment to Vassar, and as such is a small but real violation of the neutrality policy and the academic boosterism guideline.

"It is known for having" all that good stuff can't stand on the personal authority of an editor. We need to know who, exactly, testifies to its being "known" for these things. The alumni association? The Vassar admissions department? The Carnegie foundation? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Alumni[edit]

I think the link for author Joe Hill should be fixed. I believe this is a pseudonym for Owen King, who attended Vassar. JMS1225 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can find, Margaret Mitchell did not attend Vassar, as this article states. All of her biographies say that she attended Smith College instead. What source was this taken from?

I'm surprised that Mary McCarthy isn't mentioned as a very famous and accomplished alumna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Famous Parents of Alumni/Alumnae[edit]

This is far too subtrivial to be in the article. It tells us nothing whatsoever about Vassar. What next, "list of people that can be connected to Vassar by six degrees of separation?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Parents of Alumni/Alumnae[edit]

Many current and former Vassar College students are children of famous people. Here's a list of some parents and students of Vassar College:

Relevance of Congressional Representation[edit]

Does it really matter who the congressman is for the district the college is in? The college may be liberal, but most college students don't vote in their colleges districts.

Arbitrary deletion of 'trivia'[edit]

there seems to be a decided bias against the 'trivia' section. while i agree with the existing tags on the section - that they should be cited, and incorporated into the article, or removed - arbitrarily yanking the entire section as "unencyclopedic" without discussion is inappropriate. i happen to consider the section entitled 'fictional alumnae of vassar' to be entirely unencyclopedic - but it's not for me to arbitrarily just delete the whole thing. last night i incorporated a couple of the trivia entries directly into the article after attribution. this is how it should be. take them one by one. if you can't find a reliable source for the information and if you can't find any way to incorporate the information into the article after citation, then there's a good chance it can be pulled. wholesale deletion is not how things are done however.Anastrophe 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it wasn't entirely arbitrary. I looked at the entire list, considered each item individually, and decided that none of them really added anything to the article. The grandson of an Amos and Andy performer? Co-ed bathrooms? Movie mentions? A remake of Time Machine? None of those things adds anything notable about the institution, its history, or its significance. I perhaps was a bit cheeky in my edit summary, but it was a carefully considered decision after reading the article. I could perhaps see how the mention of FDR could be useful (in another section), but everything else in the section is just cruft. Providing citations doesn't make it any less useless in an article about an historically significant institution of higher learning. It's not arbitrary to acknowledge that certain tidbits of information add nothing to an article.
By the way, I agree with you about the fictional alumnae, but I got distracted before I could delete that, too. :) Esrever 20:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
sorry to be argumentative, but as you noted, "I could perhaps see how the mention of FDR could be useful (in another section)" - but you deleted it anyway. that's the definition of arbitrary. you made a blanket decision to remove *all* of them, even though you acknowledge that one of them might have significance. it would be better to leave that which you aren't sure about, rather than making a decision by fiat. Anastrophe 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I "deleted it anyway" not because I was unsure, but because I personally think it's a useless bit of trivia. I probably should have said above, though, that I find it less objectionable than the rest of the cruft (some trivia are more equal than others, I suppose). I meant to indicate that if someone else had restored it and added it into another section with some context, I wouldn't have reverted that change.
And it's not decision by fiat—I was simply being bold. Since someone obviously objected to my change, I'm more than happy to discuss it here. Can you make a case for keeping any of it? Esrever 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
i have no direct interest in making a case for them. my feeling - which may be in error - is that when a trivia section exists, it's considered good practice to whittle them down until those that are obvious to the reasonable person to be of no value are all that are left; those can then be removed after some discussion (as simple as 'does anyone object to trimming these?'). one man's trivia is another man's essential, which is why gradual incorporation or deletion is preferable - again, in my opinion. i took the time yesterday to incorporate a couple of items that seemed pertinent - one that directly relates to me personally (my dad was one of the eleven in that first male graduating class after wwII). as for the rest of them - let others make their case if they're interested. happy editing!Anastrophe 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough.
Does anyone object to me trimming the trivia section? Esrever 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

vassar in popular culture[edit]

perhaps someone should add the simpsons quote about vassar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitepassionz (talkcontribs) 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lisa: Oh, if I fail I won't even be able to get into Vassar. (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Homer:

I've had just about enough of your Vassar bashing!Hoponpop69 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassar's Colors[edit]

According to the Vassar encyclopedia (and the unequivocal fact that the Vassar graduation hoods are rose) our colors are rose and gray, although maroon is sometimes used. It's fine to be ignorant of this fact, but to mark someone as vandalism for the correction is absurd. And to even change something without checking your facts supports people's arguments that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a reliable source. that's explicit. you seem to be making a point (while also leaving uncivil comments on my talk page). this page has been vandalized a number of times. your edits carried no edit summary, which helps distinguish them from vandalism. you're also editing anonymously, which also lends to the perception that they are vandalism. you're welcome to change the colors, while also including an edit summary, and it would be helpful to add a citation to a reliable source while you're at it. that's a surefire way not to appear to be a vandal. have a scrumptious day. Anastrophe (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel the comments were uncivil, although they were merely highlighting your lack of expertise on the area you were changing, which begs the question why you were changing it in the first place. Regardless, I forgive you, and in the future would appreciate it if you didn't make it seem like I didn't add a citation, because I clearly did--though mostly so I wouldn't be baselessly cited for vandalism again (your excuses only show an unwillingness to actually look into what you were citing for vandalism. They were based solely on the context in which the (correct) change was made, and not the subject of the change itself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
pretty words don't mask that you are being uncivil. you did not add a citation with your changes, so you're not fooling anyone with this line of "dialogue". while you're at it - busily insulting other editors for their ignorance and recklessness - you might bother to read up on WP:VERIFIABILITY, as well as WP:RS; there's also that helpful suggestion at the top of each edit page that advises you how to sign your posts, so the poor overworked signbot won't have to do your housekeeping for you. while you're at is as well, you might look up proper use of the colloquial "begs the question", which you are using completely incorrectly (have you had logic 101 yet? it's a fun course!). again, have an utterly scrumptious day. Anastrophe (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, there is definitely a citation there which I put once I had to recorrect you (or if it wasn't you, whoever changed it previously.) And I can totally say "begs the question" in that context. It's common usage to say it that way regardless of its use in fallacies and whatnot. Also, quibbling over civility isn't going to hide the fact that you were incorrectly changing an article and then citing someone for vandalism over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, now there's a proper web citation, but there wasn't one in your initial edit, which you did across two edits, again - no edit summary, no citation, from an anonymous IP. i'm glad you've cleared up that you're not a vandal. now perhaps you can make some actual contributions of substance to WP. not to denigrate the gravity of ensuring all know that pink and grey are the vassar colors. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
i should note that anon just vandalized the talk page here, by removing this section. motive is now suspect again. removing commentary from the talk page - unless it's wholey unrelated to article discussion - is a violation of policy, and constitutes vandalism. Anastrophe (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did because this entire discussion is now pointless now that we know the page is correct. It serves absolutely no purpose, but if you want to continue hiding the fact that your changes were incorrect and that you needlessly cited someone for vandalism over it, please, keep spouting these awesome enlightening retorts!!! Put me in my place! (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, motives suspect? What motives could I possibly have for correcting you and supplying source for it? Please. Any would be appreciated! (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
i must say, i weep for the future of vassar, if this is an indication of how current matriculants comport themselves. it used to be that vassar students comported themselves with some degree of dignity, rather than throwing tantrums and chewing up the lawn in front of those who dare to ask them to follow the policies that apply to all of us. but i digress. your edits *were* vandalism, based upon their initial lack of citation, and that they came from an anon account. 'uncited material may be challenged and removed'. that's the policy. 90% of edits by anon accounts are vandalism, across the board. you fit the mold. had your committed edits not been done in two steps, that would have helped. your own edit history suggested it was vandalism. before your edits, it was:
Maroon and grey
you changed it to
Rose and grey
then to
Pink and grey
with no citation and no edit summary, initially. and the casual observer is supposed to just accept these at face value? no. that's not how it works here. Anastrophe (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I weep for a mentality where we change something, like you did, without verifying truth and then proceeding to punish the changer just because of context. Regardless of the fact that 90% of anon changes are vandalism, this one wasn't. And not only did you make it incorrect again without verifying anything, you cited someone for vandalism for it. Statistics won't hide the fact that you're brashly penalizing people who make anon changes (whether or not they're even correct). If making an anon post were something worthy of punishment, I doubt the site would allow it at all. And yes, you state the changes that I made, but your misconception that the changes were vandalism should have been dispelled by the fact that they were correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
it's called a "reversion". it's a function available to editors using a WP addon called 'twinkle'. it eases the task of dealing with vandals, which consumes too much time for longtime editors such as myself. your initial edits carried no cite with them and no edit summary. it isn't my responsibility to vet your edits. if you want to make a change to an article, do it right the first time, and it won't be reverted. clearly you weren't even sure of the colors yourself, per the above - and per the fact that when you re-added the changes (thankfully with a cite the second time around) - you did them in the reverse, changing them to 'pink and grey' then to 'rose and grey'. sure doesn't give a warm feeling that you knew what you were doing from the start. this could all have been avoided if your initial edit had been done correctly, with a citation. absent that, it was vandalism, pure and simple. again - it's your responsibility to cite material properly, if you don't want it reverted. at this point, the issue is moot. i again hope you'll actually make a productive change to wikipedia at some point. god knows, with about a thousand edits just this month, clearly i'm just a troublemaker. but not anon, with about three actual edits under its belt. sigh. Anastrophe (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
and really, how hard is it to type ~~~~. sheesh. Anastrophe (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Undid the change to "maroon" again. As stated in the reference, it is rose and grey. Not maroon or burgundy or pink or red or dark red or...  :-) CocoaZen (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As CocoaZen points out, the linked reference says it's rose and gray, as in fact they tell you when you attend Vassar College. Rose has sometimes been represented as maroon rather than pink, but it's *never* been called 'maroon'. The Vassar fight song is 'three cheers for the rose and the gray', not 'maroon and the gray' or 'pink and the gray'. (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone has changed it back to "maroon" again. That is incorrect as the reference shows. I'll look up who did it and ask why. I don't want to violate the 3-revert rule, but it is annoying that people keep changing this to incorrect information despite the correct information in the citation. CocoaZen (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

An unregistered editor is continuing to edit war to change "Rose" to "Maroon." As stated above by several editors, the cited source unequivocally says "Rose" so until and unless this editor joins this discussion I will treat his or her edits as vandalism. ElKevbo (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

US News rankings in the introduction[edit]

I deleted the US News ranking from the introduction as Vassar is a member of the Annapolis group, and therefore does not use the rankings in its own publicity material, and its place as #11 liberal arts college is therefore an irrelevant sentence for the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

information within wikipedia is not guided or controlled by the publicity materials the subject of the article employs. i'm reverting. Anastrophe (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

why do we then not place the disregarded rankings of all colleges in all introductions?

Use of word "Elite"[edit]

Who or what defines the standards necessary for a college or university to be considered "elite"? Why is vassar "elite"? This term is too ambiguous. "Selective" or "Highly selective" are definable terms. For instance US News ranks Vassar as a "most selective" college. If this college is actually considered elite by some creditable source then please cite it.JKOLO 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All of those terms are non-neutral peacock terms included only to convey the prestige of the university. None of them have any place in the article. Assert facts, not opinions and just describe the actual admissions numbers and let the readers make up their own minds. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of Vassar's Main Building[edit]

In deleting the spurious notion that Vassar's Main Building is sometimes called Old Main, I am actually make a common sense edit. I can refer Anastrophe to this page to show the lack of any reference to Old Main. If the original writer of the pertinent Wikipedia article had written that the Empire State Building is sometimes called the Old Empire State building, would I have to find positive evidence to prove that is is a false statement? According to your logic, this article from the VC encyclopedia would have to say "it is NOT called Old Main." Finally, Anastrophe, I did not make that change anonymously. You show bad faith in assuming it is vandalism, because if fell squarely in the realm of the 10% of good faith revisions. Francis Smith (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally: I'm grateful that Anastrophe added a reference to a flawed source--we now know whence the bad information came (the National Historic Landmarks Program website It just goes to show you--you can't always trust what you read on the web. I just sent that website an email apprising them of their mistake, and sent the Vassar Historian a copy. Francis Smith (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

uh, no bad faith, as i never characterized it as vandalism. putting words in my mouth then attacking me for them isn't the most enlightened form of argumentation. had you provided a rationale for your original removal of the name 'old main' - at least one more compelling than "i've never heard of it" - we might have had this discussion here before getting our knickers in a knot. there's enough issues in the world more significant than this that i'll happily yield the 'high ground' to you on the matter. sheesh. Anastrophe (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Highly selective" in lead[edit]

It's long-standing practice to not include vague, POV descriptors like "highly selective," "elite," or "prestigious" in the lead of university and college articles. I don't see any reason that this article should be any different. The unregistered editors who are edit-warring against this consensus are welcome to discuss the issue but the burden is on them to overturn that consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of these terms, like "highly selective" have defined meanings in the sources that rate different colleges and universities. A citation to that source would be appropriate, but while I agree that vague adjectives like "prestigious" are unnecessary, other terms like "highly selective" do contribute to the meaning of the article. CocoaZen (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What meaning does it contribute to the article? ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
CocoaZen if you can find that source then it's definitely worth keeping. In the meantime I still think the phrase "highly selective" conveys that, on average, Vassar College accepts students at a lower rate than most other colleges. Lugehorsam (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And this conveys what to readers of the article...? ElKevbo (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012[edit]

Please change Vassar's endowment from $699 million to $814 million because that is the most recently reported value of the college's current endowment. Source:, "U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2011 Endowment Market Value and Percentage Change in Endowment Market Value from FY 2010 to FY 2011 (Revised and updated on March 19, 2012)."

EBishopfan (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Done, thanks for your contribution. Also, for future requests, it would be easier to respond if you also provide a URL to the source. Monty845 04:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2012[edit]

Under the "Rankings" headings, please change "U.S. News & World Report places it in the top 25 liberal arts college" to "U.S. News & World Report places it in the top 10 liberal arts colleges." See:

Also, please change "Forbes Magazine places Vassar in the top 25 of its "America's Best Colleges" ranking which includes military academies, national universities, and liberal arts colleges" to "Forbes Magazine places Vassar in the top 20 of its "America's Best Colleges" ranking which includes military academies, national universities, and liberal arts colleges." See:

Vassar is now a Top 10 Liberal Arts College - i Think this should be noted. (as of September 15th 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laos101 (talkcontribs) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC) (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Vassar Alum, Class of 2000

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I've updated the Forbes ranking. I am unable to verify your claim at the U.S. News page you linked above. Please either point very specifically to where on that page it's supported or provide a different link. And please add any further comments below this reply. Replacing older text instead of supplementing it removes the context from the earlier reply. (Note: the above request has been updated. As originally posted, it contained no links.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

On the original link uploaded for U.S. News (, please note that the number "#10" is displayed directly beneath the main picture of Vassar library, denoting the college's ranking. Alternatively, see the following link: The first college listed is Vassar; please note that the "#10" appears directly to the right of the picture of the library and to the left of "Vassar College," indicating once again the college's top 10 status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, I figured it was there somewhere. Those white-on-yellow number graphics are an unfortunate choice, at least for my browser. Rivertorch (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)